Dunn now rejects the term "hostile workplace,” and adds the typical PR bullshit evidence: “The president is someone who when he goes home at night he goes home to house full of very strong women... He values having strong women around him.”

In my experience, women who are vigilant about workplaces that are hostile to women hate that argument: A man has a strong wife at home, so he must not be opposed to the success of women in the workplace.

And, by the way, specifically, I'd say that Barack Obama has kept his wife in a distinctly subordinate role. Michelle Obama went to Princeton and Harvard Law School, and now she works on encouraging children to eat vegetables and get some exercise.

But... whatever... Anita Dunn... I always thought she was a bit of an idiot. She shouldn't have gotten the job in the first place. If she was initially overpromoted, it was a good thing that she got excluded. She shouldn't have been included.

But Suskind talked to other disincluded women. According to the Washington Post account of the book:

[W]omen occupied many of the West Wing’s senior positions, but felt outgunned and outmaneuvered by male colleagues such as former Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Summers.

Obama, according to the book... failed to call on Romer after asking her male colleagues for their opinions. The snub prompted Romer to pass a note to Summers where she threatened to walk out of the dinner, according to the book....

The Obama White House has long been dogged by similar claims of exclusivity — his golf outings have been typically all-male affairs...

So... is there something sexist about the Obama administration? Seems like Suskind came up with a great angle for his book, but I'm skeptical. I think Obama may have been overenthusiastic about giving a lot of positions to women, and perhaps those women really weren't as good as the men he surrounded himself with and really does need to rely on. In that case, he deserves credit for good judgment. But it is funny that he's not more concerned about the optics. Perhaps he assumes that he is especially appealing to women constituents and he doesn't need to do much to maintain that favor. It's the men he's in danger of losing. Time for another round of all-male, manly golf.

Barack Obama does not keep Michelle in a subordinate role. Michelle Obama, however qualified, is not elected to anything. So, as is tradition, she is acting like a traditional first lady. Hillary Clinton tried to break out of that role when Bill was president and it backfired badly.

There are women who truly are victimized by a work place environment. That is increasingly rare, but it does still happen. There are, unfortunately, women who abuse that accusation to abuse those around them in the work place.

In my experience, women who are vigilant about workplaces that are hostile to women hate that argument: A man has a strong wife at home, so he must not be opposed to the success of women in the workplace.

In my experience, women who are vigilant about workplace hostility toward women are usually hauling around a bagful of neuroses.

I think Obama may have been overenthusiastic about giving a lot of positions to women, and perhaps those women really weren't as good as the men he surrounded himself with and really does need to rely on.

So he tried to practice affirmative action and it didn't work out. But that won't stop him from pushing affirmaive action on the rest of the country, though, will it?

Your spin in the last para is pathetic. So in your view women who were hired were the problem. He just didn't hire the right kind. If he was so smart why couldn't he hire capable women? You don't think there are not any, do you?

Perhaps he assumes that he is especially appealing to women constituents and he doesn't need to do much to maintain that favor.

Of course, the fool assumes he does not need to do anything more than to call a reporter 'sweetie' like he did on the campaign trail or offer a 'kiss' to a woman standing in the rope line for her vote.. Women like you and others who supported him are fools. Your airbrushing on this post is despicable.

I think Obama may have been overenthusiastic about giving a lot of positions to women, and perhaps those women really weren't as good as the men he surrounded himself with and really does need to rely on.

"I think Obama may have been overenthusiastic about giving a lot of positions to women, and perhaps those women really weren't as good as the men he surrounded himself with and really does need to rely on. In that case, he deserves credit for good judgment." Ann: You cannot mean what you wrote: Obama exercised good judgment by pandering in his PC appointments and then ignoring those appointees because they are unqualified?

"And, by the way, specifically, I'd say that Barack Obama has kept his wife in a distinctly subordinate role. Michelle Obama went to Princeton and Harvard Law School, and now she works on encouraging children to eat vegetables and get some exercise."

Funny, I don't ever recall seeing her on the ballot, or subject to Senate confirmation. Just exactly what job did she run for, that would require her to have any more responsibilities than cheering on broadly inoffensive "good things," notwithstanding the offense of being hectored to eat one's vegetables.

The less we see and hear from Michele Obama, the better, notwithstanding her credentials as a degree-carrying member of the doucheois.

Otherwise, yeah, just another story of another set of rubes figuring out the Dali-Obama ain't all that.

What has Michelle Obama done to suggest that she has any qualifications at all? She got her ticket punched a couple of times, undoubtedly through affirmative action. Remember that ridiculous college paper she wrote? Sometimes the elitism shines through clearly.

I think you make a great point about the role Michelle plays, but to be fair, that is the expected role of a First Lady. Remember what happened when a truly strong woman, Hillary Clinton, was given a substantive role. She was viewed as a shrew, her policy initiative failed, and next thing you know, she was submitting cookie recipes to Good Housekeeping. I wonder if America is yet ready for a powerful woman in the White House.

However, I am a little disappointed in the direction the blog post took. Anita Dunn may be a dolt, but to extrapolate from her to other women in the White House by implying that the reason Obama has turned to the men is because they are more competent, is both unlikely and somewhat offensive. Is academia in your experience any less sexist (despite the sensitivity bullshit) than other careers? I don't believe so, in my experience as both a former law student and the husband of a university administrator. Perhaps Obama is just an ordinary, somewhat insecure, somewhat sexist male who prefers male company because it is less challenging and easier.

A more interesting question regarding the role of women in the White House is the role of Valerie Jarrett. Is she really the powerful doyenne she is made out to be or merely a fawning sycophant from the old gang?

The interesting thing about this is the conjunction with the next blog entry and the contrast with the Bush (43) Administration.

Maybe, in time, the Obama women will approach the Cheney women in strength, but I seriously doubt it. And, that is one of the big reasons that the Bush Administration was rated as extremely women friendly. One indicia of this was that the Cheney women were apparently running a day care over at the EOB for the kids of the top Bush WH women.

Back when Bush played golf, I don't think he ever played with any women. Finally, after years of research, I have been able to isolate an unfair criticism of Obama that was never directed at Bush.

Then again, Bush also gave up golf after we had troops on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq. Something about how bad it would look if the President were enjoying himself that way, while the troops under his command are fighting and dying halfway around the world.

Think of how much better Obama would look to all of us if he had followed the same policy, and, additionally, had either gone to a family house or Camp David for vacations, instead of the multi-million dollar ones that he and his wife seem to greatly prefer.

Obama believes he knows more than any of the people who work for him anyway. Remember his comment that he is a better speech writer than his speech writers? So "optics" become paramount.

The comment by one of the women in the WH that the women felt "outugnned and outmaneuvered" by the men conjures an interesting scene.

Finally, I'm not sure, Ann, that Obama has kept Michelle in a subordinate role, as you maintain. She gave up her law license for unclear reasons when still in Chicago. And I have read her Princeton thesis - distinctly unimpressive. That family is affirmative action gone wild!

Think of how much better Obama would look to all of us if he had followed the same policy, and, additionally, had either gone to a family house or Camp David for vacations, instead of the multi-million dollar ones that he and his wife seem to greatly prefer.

Right, sure. It'd just all be a big love fest for Obama if only he'd done that.

"perhaps those women really weren't as good as the men he surrounded himself with"

Who weren't any good either.

Liberals doth protest way too much. They are the greediest, most racist and sexist, selfish, disloyal, and childish spawn of the cultural revolution which jettisoned the conservative values that had evolved over millenia to civilize mankind and check his basest impulses.

Anyone who is surprised by the endemic ugly behavior of the left at this point is a fool.

Graduation from Princeton and Harvard Law by the classically AA promoted MO means...what exactly? Means nothing. Well, it does mean that those two institutions are corrupt to the core. But it says nothing about the quality of her intellect.

@dfooter: However, I am a little disappointed in the direction the blog post took.

You made my point better than I did in my comment. About Valerie Jarrett, you don't need brains for what she does. Her qualification is to be as corrupt as she can be and she fulfills the role of the gatekeeper for the pay to play, the old Chicago way. She was trained well in her previous incarnation in Daley's office. (see my links in the open thread post).

I suspect that there is quite a bit of sexism in the Obama Administration. Liberal males are among the most sexist people there are, routinely treating women as objects and not as human persons.

At the same time, I also suspect that many of the cries of sexism are laughably frivolous and overblown. Liberal women are among the most paranoid and deluded people there are, routinely seeing sexism in every action and every thought by men.

Note that if you're only asking the women, they're more likely to remember the times they were (arguably) slighted than the times they were (arguably) given preferential treatment. It's not clear to me that that's what's going on here, but the excerpt I see is based on a handful of anecdotes recalled by women.

I think Obama may have been overenthusiastic about giving a lot of positions to women, and perhaps those women really weren't as good as the men he surrounded himself with and really does need to rely on. In that case, he deserves credit for good judgment. But it is funny that he's not more concerned about the optics.

It's funny, sometimes, to watch you twist yourself into knots over this bullshit. It's not as funny to think it's going to take you YEARS to untangle that nest of nonsense enough to see clearly.

When I first got here, the phrase "And you, a law professor!" was used mockingly to claim, almost, that you had a right to be an idiot. Well, in the case of you and Glenn, as reality continues to settle in - the reality I've championed from the beginning of our encounters - that phrase becomes less of a joke and more of an accusation:

As a law professor, you're smarter than this and should've already been able to reveal it in ways beyond playing the fool to PC concerns.

He's a skinny ectomorph with dreams of being Broad Shoulders, or at least of connecting somehow with the Broad Shoulders who abandoned him.

Of course he doesn't exactly skim from the top of the talent pool, in most cases, either among men or women. Certainly not where his West Wing operation is concerned. And his female Cabinet picks (I'm excluding Hillary for the present) are less than thrilling.

There are women who truly are victimized by a work place environment. That is increasingly rare, but it does still happen. There are, unfortunately, women who abuse that accusation to abuse those around them in the work place.

That's reality, but Ann could give a shit about reality. She was almost proud, not too long ago, when she could show she hasn't moved too far to the right - like there's some medal she wins for staying wrong.

Feminism is a dead philosophy. Once Ann can come to terms with the fact she likes men, she'll stop making love to the corpse.

Romer told the world that if we don't pass the stimulus we'll see 8% unemployment. You wonder why anyone asks her opinion.

Liberals, and I include myself here because I supported 0 on the grounds that electing an African-American president would be good for the country, have a blindness that screws up their policies. They see individuals as members of demographic groups. That is why it is OK to hire women and treat them like decorations because that is precisely why they were hired. That is why they go bat shit bonkers when a woman like Palin or Bachman expresses opinions that deviate from the feminazi line. That is why they become a lynch mob when discussing Clarence Thomas.

"Barack Obama does not keep Michelle in a subordinate role. Michelle Obama, however qualified, is not elected to anything. So, as is tradition, she is acting like a traditional first lady."

Hillary tried to be part of government in a role that was significant.

Michelle is also trying to be part of government by scolding us about what we eat, but she's taking the traditional insignificant role.

There are problems with non-government jobs a first lady might do, the same sorts of problems that make her outrageous previous salary combined with Obama's Senate role a problem. But there ought to be something productive in the private sphere that she could do if she wanted to.

"And his female Cabinet picks (I'm excluding Hillary for the present) are less than thrilling."

And yet look how he treated Hillary at the beginning? (Who knows about now; it doesn't make the news.)

He appointed her and she's all, "Get to work!" and started making decisions about assignments and policy and whatnot within the domain of the Department of State and he publicly countermanded her decisions proving to one and all that she didn't have the authority to make them. I can't stand the woman and I was appalled.

Judging by her comment on Mao, Ms. Dunn is quite capable of saying foolish things. Judging by his record, Larry Sumners is overbearing and incapable of masking his contempt for those he considers of lesser intellect, i.e. everyone. It was a historic inevitability that he would treat women like Dunn with disregard and that she would attribute her bruised feelings to his sexism.....Sometimes bad manners are bad manners and have nothing to do with sexism. If Sumners treated women with consideration and tact, he would be betraying his character. There's no reason why Sumners should have singled her out and treated her like a human being...It is interesting to note that the Bush White House was never accused of sexism in its dealings with its female employees. This makes two unfair criticisms that have been directed at Obama and not at Bush. I always knew it was possible, but I never thought I would live to see it.

Both Rahm Emmanuel and Larry Summers have extremely long histories of being aggressive, pushy jerks.

At this late date in history, it's unlikely anybody would want to set up a hostile work environment. But it would be quite possible, if you were hiring people one by one and without regards to team dynamics, to end up with one.

On the economy, one key claim the book makes is that Geithner failed to follow through on a March 2009 order to look into dissolving Citigroup, and Obama realized that “the speed with which the bureaucracy could exercise my decision was slower than I wanted.”

A senior Treasury official pushed back against the book’s claims, saying that Suskind’s account of Geithner dragging his feet on on Obama’s Citigroup directive is simply untrue.

In the book Geithner also denies that he ignored Obama’s order, but the book offers a portrait of a president who was outmaneuvered by Beltway insiders, according to Suskind.

If true, this is about the most pathetic thing I've ever heard. You mean bureaucrats might slow-walk a policy they oppose? Those wascally bureaucrats!

"She "passed a note" threatening to stomp off because she wasn't called on? Who are these people in the White House?"

I'd have been pissed. I'd have thought about leaving. But I'd never have done it because I've been socialized (and possibly bred, being Norwegian and all) to suppress such unseemly scene making. That doesn't mean I don't recognize that it would have been *appropriate*.

I don't know how many women here have worked in predominately male environments, and I suppose the men wouldn't notice, but if I had ever felt my opinion was ignored when opinions were solicited it would have been a flagrant aberration of normal expectations. I was in the military 20 years ago and this wouldn't have happened.

So what's the deal?

I'm not inclined to say it was nothing. I'm not insistent that it wasn't that Romer expected to be coddled and refused to put herself forward.

And all-male golf or not, he needs to have at least issued an invitation to the women.

if I had ever felt my opinion was ignored when opinions were solicited it would have been a flagrant aberration of normal expectations.

I agree with this, and I'm not sure it's completely a sexism issue, either. Advisors are there to advise. If some people are being allowed to dominate the conversation just by virtue of being more aggressive, that reflects badly on the person in charge.

That said, "nobody wanted to listen to my contribution!" sounds like a very common complaint, so I'm not sure we should take Romer completely at her word. Romer was one of the first people out of the administration, and it's natural that she would have bruised feelings.

You would think that the ambitious little bitches with law degrees or less valuable political science degrees would see the Whitehouse mid-level, low-level appointments or legal internships as the career-boosting plums that tens of thousands apply for and only a few dozen get.

And suck it up like the men do, who find that work conditions can be unbelievably crappy, work intense. And many of the political insider, technocrat bosses and inner circle people at the White House they report to are hyperambitious, arrogant pricks and witches that treat the hired help or interns as shit beneath their feet. They suck it up, cheerfully say, "May I have another daily shit sandwich, M'am?" - because they want it on their resume and they want the references from those with actual power and clout.

An acquaintance who was in the military left before the Gulf War, got an internship with OMB on military outlays in the Budget. It was hell. Tucked away in some remote WWII barracks in Anacostia with leaky roofs, rats, cockroaches. Scutwork for a clueless rube who was related to the Governor of some state that helped HW Bush who typicaly screamed at them why they weren't at OMB when they worked in a government pocket halfway across the City - in an especially dangerous and scummy neighborhood. Public transport was "risky" and they always tried to go in a large group. With a largely black and indolent civil service compliment with real attitude problems..And half his work was misdirected and never used in any OMB product.

He did what any man in similar circumstances would do - he sucked it up - waited for his optimum time to move on. But damn, did that not look good on his resume and in helping his later career with a series of defense contractors!!

What definition of "sociopath" as applied to the President is not clear to anyone paying attention. I've stated it before in this blog's comments, anyone who has a close relationship with the likes of Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers over a long period of time must share at least some common beliefs with those two. The President's conduct in office was entirely predictable well before the election. Sexism is just "icing on the cake", and it's a moldy, stale cake for sure

"Obama, according to the book... failed to call on Romer after asking her male colleagues for their opinions. The snub prompted Romer to pass a note to Summers where she threatened to walk out of the dinner, according to the book...."

What a pathetic wuss. If she actually thought she had something useful to say, she should have volunteered it, rather than writing whiny notes.

If she didn't have anything useful to say, and is simply upset that her ego wasn't stroked, and she wasn't invited to speak and repeat the same thing someone else had already said, then she needs to grow up. It's not about her, and it's not about her needs. It should be about the country. It's actually about the President, and his needs. If she can't grasp that, then she's clearly been promoted beyond her competence.

The fact that she's actually willing to tell that story, and have it published, is quite embarrassing, frankly. Does she have no idea how she comes across?

I think Obama may have been overenthusiastic about giving a lot of positions to women, and perhaps those women really weren't as good as the men he surrounded himself with and really does need to rely on. In that case, he deserves credit for good judgment. But it is funny that he's not more concerned about the optics.

This paragraph made me want to scream, and cringe. Way to whip everybody up, if that was your goal. Anita Dunn, agreed, was an idiot and a bad hire, and the worst hair in the administration. Christy Romer, clearly better than any male member of the economic team, but at least in private, she would not have been able to provide the suck-up happy news on the economy that BO needed to reinforce his inflexible and incorrect ideas. And no matter how big she is, she could never elbow her way past the giant gaping a-hole Summers.

What a relief knowing BO showed good judgment in knowing he really, really needed to rely on those aggressive jerks and male sycophants he surrounded himself with.

See? Anyone who can see Hillary Clinton as a leader is a fool. I wouldn't have mistreated her because she never would've got the job. An,d when she asked why, I would've told her to go ask her psychic.

Other people's idea of a "strong woman" differs radically from mine. For some reason, theirs never includes a fully functioning brain,..

Most men in authority roles are smart enough to recruit women who are competent and willing to do the man's work for him and give him the credit.

What was cited as hostility here is the extra hump that a woman must jump to become an authority figure herself.That makes her a competitor like another man and the man also has to kow tow to her femaleness as good manors which makes it into a double problem for the man.

What a silly thing to say. Of course we're ready for a woman in the White House... provide she's the one elected there. And if she is, we expect her husband to be the second coming of Denis Thatcher--which is Yet Another Reason to be wary of Hillary as a potential candidate.

The Obama White House actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.

Ugh.

"Hostile workplace" was invented by Catherine Mackinnon--who is an utter nutjob--as part of sex harassment litigation.

You had "quid pro quo" harassment, which was any attempt to induce an employee to have sex with you at work.

And then there was "hostile workplace," which basically means you sexualize the workplace.

If you say, "Shut up, Anita, you whore," that's a hostile workplace.

"My boss did not call on me in the meeting" is not a classic case of a hostile workplace.

It's not even the right fucking tort.

I am sorry but this is just crybaby behavior.

Men have issues with their boss, too. There are going to be conflicts at work! Suck it up and deal with it!

It's liberal horseshit. Cry about utopia, rainbows and buttercups, sue to get some free money, and then wonder why the fuck products and services are more expensive, and the unemployment rate is so high.

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but as I recall, Dunn was one of the principle brains behind the KGB-esqe snitch list for Obama Care. Is her hissy fit because she wasn't referred to "Big Sister?"

During the primary, I strongly felt that Obama was sexist and I was constantly told that he couldn't be because his wife was so strong. She had a PR job for a hospital making a huge salary that she only got after he became Senator. How is that strong?

Every woman I know is going to vote for Obama. Every minority I know is going to vote for Obama. He has nothing to worry about. The biggest problems are with the GOP. They are going to lose so bad that it will be a miracle if they even vote one district. GOP is finished. All these tricks will go nowhere. At the K-street jamboree, the bid is Obama-Biden will win over 70% of vote. Perry, Palin, or Romney are trying to become ready for 2016. They have no chance in 2012, no chance at all.

What's interesting about this book is that it's a feminist attack on Obama. What it's basically trying to do--I think--is re-open the schism between the Hillary fans and the Obama fans. And Obama gave Hillary the Secretary of State job to put a damper on that. But there's still some bad blood from that race. And this book is trying to exploit it.

I suspect the author had this in mind when he wrote it. Even his title, "Confidence Men" suggests male arrogance and male deceit. And of course you make Summers a main character. You hear Summers and your feminist bells are supposed to go "ding ding ding!"

I was harsh on Dunn, but of course that's utterly unfair if Suskind is a dishonest reporter who has an agenda. I mean, if his whole book is premised on the idea that the Obama Administration is sexist, no telling what is an actual quote. She flatly denies saying anything like that.

The other interesting thing is the timing of this book. It's released when Obama's poll numbers are in free fall. Liberals are getting sick of him. Almost ready...almost ready...attack!

Now maybe we start to see a draft Hillary movement?

I wonder if Hillary is quoted in the book? Looks like she refused to talk to him. Maybe she heard it was a hit job.

One thing Hillary has always been, and that is loyal. She's a team player. I find her very annoying. I would never vote for her. But I've always had a grudging respect for her, too.

Those "strong women" at home, Michelle and his mother, are the problem. Haven't leftist figured out by now that President 0 is two-faced liar? He gives women jobs and has no intention of letting them actually do anything important. His mother-in-law lives with them. Golfing is a necessary opportunity to sneak more cigs and be away from Michelle. She looks like she could be really cranky, a lot.

Yes, leftist men are terribly sexist. The Onion had an article and photo about this once. The photo showed an aging hippie with a sign that said "I agree with whatever my girlfriend said because she lets me sleep with her." Obama gives them lip service and then asks them to leave the room while the adults make decisions. Most of the time. Don't forget that it was a trio of women who got us involved in Libya.

Ann, does AttackWatch know about you? Your blog seems pretty critical of 0. (Did you know that if we use the zero instead of the capital "oh" letter, it looks pretty much like the "oh" letter. A little skinnier, but then so is The 0.)

"I think Obama may have been overenthusiastic about giving a lot of positions to women, and perhaps those women really weren't as good as the men he surrounded himself with and really does need to rely on."

Obama gave a lot of (most?) positions for reasons other than qualifications, so there is no good excuse for ignoring women specifically, bacuse of their performance.

OTOH, Obama is certainly not qualified to be a president by any standard. And I have been ignoring his speeches since hearing his campaign drivel a couple of times.